Whistle blowing on Global Warming

[wrag]

i seriously believe that anyone that didn't already suspect something like this was hiding under a rock.

but then everyone calls me paranoid when i talk like this.

YOU ARE PARANOID! 

There..... feel better? 

I get it too     

[druski85]

A old Discovery Channel?  Film showed something that might make your statement not entirely true.

Very interesting Wrag, I'll have to check it out.  Still, we would need an incomprehensibly large amount of said bacteria to be dying *constantly* to come close to even US consumption, let alone anyone else.  (21 million barrels/day x 42 gallons per barrel = 882,000,000 Gallons / day.  That's a lot of dead stuff)

[cpxxx]

Three points are clear to me:
1. Human activities contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than any other source.  You can refute claims that other things, like e.g. volcanoes, contribute more CO2 with some basic stoichiometry and volcanology data.
2. CO2 levels are rising.
3. CO2 reflects thermal radiation.
Draw your own conclusions from these points.

Actually point 1. is inaccurate and that is not disputed. Human activities added about 3.5% of the total CO2. I don't have a reference to hand but it's easily checked. Yes it's really that low. You have been conned. When you factor in other greenhouse gases like water vapour, man's actual contribution drops well below 1%. Again all this is easily checked.

You can draw you own conclusions based on that inconvenient truth.

[Chalenge]

the fact is that the earth cycles. it will cycle with humans living on it, and it will cycle long after humans are gone.
 for anyone to think that the human race(a speck of dust in the grand scheme of things) can actually affect mother earth in normal day to day living is pretty much asinine.
 when the earth has had enough, we'll disappear.........

Uh... yeh... I was being goofy man! But you know there are people in California that actually believe a plastic bag will destroy the Earth and also that stinky feet will bring plague and pestilence. 

[wrag]

Very interesting Wrag, I'll have to check it out.  Still, we would need an incomprehensibly large amount of said bacteria to be dying *constantly* to come close to even US consumption, let alone anyone else.  (21 million barrels/day x 42 gallons per barrel = 882,000,000 Gallons / day.  That's a lot of dead stuff)

Should have seen the cloud of stuff comin out!  And the speed it was goin was FAST!

IIRC back in the mid seventies I recall a guy telling me that ALL the U.S. oil wells had refilled.  Said oil and natural gas came from a small microbe/bacteria that lived in the soil under extreme heat and pressure and it died when exposed to oxygen or the pressure got too low or the temp got too low.  And that when it died it became a sludge like substance we call crude oil.

AND it tended to flow into pockets, usually the same pockets, and filled or refilled them.

Wondered about it for years and after seein the stuff comin out of that underwater chimney I tend to believe what he told me.

Another little point you might want to think on is not too long back there was a report in the news about some scientist types discovering a small microbe that MIGHT produce oil, IF it was genetically enhanced, but they were going to have to research it.

Interesting info.  Wish I had saved the article!

[Anaxogoras]

Actually point 1. is inaccurate and that is not disputed. Human activities added about 3.5% of the total CO2. I don't have a reference to hand but it's easily checked. Yes it's really that low. You have been conned. When you factor in other greenhouse gases like water vapour, man's actual contribution drops well below 1%. Again all this is easily checked.

You can draw you own conclusions based on that inconvenient truth.

You're right.  What I was reading clearly limited the scope of the claim to the burning of fossil fuels being the largest man-made contributer.  It then went on to compare the kg of CO2 from the combustion of fossil fuels to the kg of CO2 from volcanoes, etc.  I was not conned, but I did get ahead of myself with some sloppy reading.

[33Vortex]

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller at a UN dinner in 1994

[john9001]

CO2, it's what plants crave.

[Sabre]

It's not a bait and switch at all.  It was a direct response to your claim that we should weigh the alternative of reducing warming in ways other than CO2 reduction......Because that misses the point that increasing atmospheric CO2 has other negative impacts that go beyond average temperature.  If that were not the case, then you would be right that we could apply a more traditional cost/benefit calculus to the correct course of action.

I understand that the point goes beyond global warming, but that's also why the term "climate change" is preferable.  The ocean is just as important to our climate as the air we breathe.

I think you may be confused on the order of posts, and what was in response to what, but that is inconsequential.  It IS a bait and switch, as is the change from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".  When one argument starts to fall apart, or evidence comes to light that refutes it (facts are very pesky to people with agendas), shift to an argument that was never central to the debate (acidification of the oceans!), or change the name ("climate change") so one can broaden one's definition of supporting evidence.  Where as "climate" has always been taken to mean weather patterns and such, now with a single word change you're claiming ocean PH balance is now included!?! Seems like bait and switch to me, and the bait is smelling mighty stinky .  

Oh, and has already been pointed out, man is not the major source of CO2, and CO2 is a mere fraction of the so-called greenhouse gases (and is by far not the most important).  And again I'll point out that the heat-trapping properties of CO2 are not linear as levels go up.  In otherwords, doubling of CO2 causes x amount of additional heat to be trapped; doubling it again causes x/2 additional heat, and so on.  This may be one reason why CO2 has continued to climb in the last 10 years, but global temperatures have not.  Just a thought.

By the way, I've heard pretty much nothing in the media about the coming oceanic acidification disaster; even today, the claims of armegedon still focus on higher temperatures and their associated effects (floods, drought, famine, rising sea levels, to name but a few of the claims).  I don't believe even Al Gore's propaganda "fictu-mentary" mentioned that as a danger, even in passing (could be wrong, of course).  I do suspect that if global temperatures remain stagnent or start to decline, someone will trot out acidification of the oceans as the "real" danger of CO2 ("We never said warming was the main danger, honest!"), to keep that horse twitching and justify draconian and global measures to curb them.  Oh, and what is the tipping point, CO2-level wise, where we cause catastrophic damage to marine life due to acidification?  How many PPM? Based on what models?  As long as we're shifting the focus from "warming" to "acidification", I'd like to know.

[Rash]

CO2, it's what plants crave.

Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes.

[Anaxogoras]

Sabre, I don't appreciate being accused of bait and switch tactics in the face of a clear explanation of how what I said directly addressed your post.  Therefore I'm afraid there cannot be fruitful discussion.

regards,

Gavagai

[RTHolmes]

Fascinating how they manipulate data to support their case. More fascinating is that they openly admit it in the emails.. Priceless exposure of evil science and a total lack of honesty. Intimidation and threats are part and parcel of the methods described in the emails.

not that surprising, the whole climate science arena reeks of this kind of manipulation, its like they learnt the scientific method from the ID guys. I particularly like that because I dont buy into all of this pseudo-science I'm apparently a "climate denier". lovely phrase that, with its subconscious association with "holocaust denier" and therefore neo-nazis. the manipulation runs deep, all the way from the raw data to its ultimate presentation.

biggest shame is that this stuff is important, and the undoubtedly good work of a small % of these scientists is obscured by the dogma of the rest.

[batch]

at the current trend of pH changes in the ocean (based on data from the last 240 years or so according to them) if you base is strictly on the data and not emotional response with a skewed view toward proving a point........ it would be over 1000 years before getting close to a danger point of acidification

[33Vortex]

The goal of this scare is to put a tax on CO˛, which is a biproduct of all animal life on the planet. The result => a tax on life itself. This is what they want, together with a global government. During the Copenhagen meeting in December this year Obama is poised to cede US sovereignty to a new global government. Likewise will the EU subdue to this global entity, and at the flick of a pen we will have this "New World Order" that the politicians have been mentioning every now and then the last 20 years or so, but never spoken clearly of. Climate change is all part of the charade to scare the populace into submission.

[CAP1]

Uh... yeh... I was being goofy man! But you know there are people in California that actually believe a plastic bag will destroy the Earth and also that stinky feet will bring plague and pestilence. 

i kinda figured that........but there's people in here taking this poop too seriously.